The idea that republicans are less likely to increase the deficit than the democrats seems pretty far fetched when you look at it.

Post great depression/WW2, both parties presided over a long term reduction in the deficit. Then Reagan and Bush mk 1 presided over a massive increase, reversed under Clinton before GWB mk 2 presided over another massive increase.

Basically, both parties did much the same thing. The outliers are: 1. the Reagan/GWB mk 1 years, but they had the excuse of the cold war, 2. Clinton, but he was (IMO) fortunate with his timing in presiding over a period of peace and economic growth (rather than him really being the cause of either), 3. GWB mk 2, who was (IMO) a compelte and utter f*ck up.

The story, for me, is one of coke vs pepsi - with the exception of GWB mk 2 who is whatever soft drink you hate the most (so, for me, he's root beer - god I hate that stuff).

September 14th, 2012, 6:46 am

modninerfan

Pop Warner Rookie

Joined: October 12th, 2011, 6:52 pmPosts: 104Location: Modesto, CA

Re: Coke V Pepsi

Blueskies wrote:

Pablo you're 100% right. Maybe one day people will realize we live under a one-party, dual head system and wake up. I have hope.

This country has been at war for 60 years and there's no end in sight. We're fighting a "war on terror" -- a war that can't possibly be won because there is no definitive enemy. Just because we weren't fighting a major war, doesn't mean we haven't always been at war. We were in Vietnam in the mid 50s. We were in Nicaragua, Afghanistan in the 1980s, on and on. We have bases in the majority of the countries on earth.

There was no reason for Reagan to waste all that money in the 1980s. The commies were operating under a flawed economic model that was doomed to collapse. We built (wasted money on) enough nukes to destroy the world 100 times over. Isn't once enough?

Once the Soviet Union collapsed, military spending should've been cut by 80%. Clinton cut it to some extent, but not enough. Then our pal GWB went on a cowboy adventure and blew $4 trillion dollars pursuing Bin Laden.

Anyway, I agree with WJB in that entitlements are a larger problem than the military. But, wasteful military spending is just as bad. Of course, GWB actually made the entitlement problem worse by expanding medicare, and he blew his chance to reform social security.

It cracks me up that we squabble over Nasa or NPR funding, these are merely pennies our govt shells out... there are two, apparently untouchable, expenditures that need reducing and thats military and entitlement programs. There are 21 active aircraft carriers in the world, we lead everybody with 11 (9 more on the way too). You know who is in 2nd? Spain and Italy! they each only have 2. why on earth do we need 20 Aircraft carriers? On top of having bases all over the world? The over spending goes on and on and on. We all know we have the capability to mass produce these ships faster than any country on earth. We can still invest in the technology, remain the worlds most advanced military without building all of this.

_________________“Jim's a dynamic man with incredible determination, willpower and energy. He's the ultimate in a driven person who has high expectations. The people around him respond. He's on the cutting edge with an outstanding football mind.” - Bill Walsh

September 14th, 2012, 2:23 pm

conversion02

RIP Killer

Joined: January 26th, 2005, 9:34 pmPosts: 10457Location: Sycamore, IL

Re: Coke V Pepsi

I work with many, many ex nuclear sub reactor operators and from everything they say, the spending is absurd.

Pablo you're 100% right. Maybe one day people will realize we live under a one-party, dual head system and wake up. I have hope.

This country has been at war for 60 years and there's no end in sight. We're fighting a "war on terror" -- a war that can't possibly be won because there is no definitive enemy. Just because we weren't fighting a major war, doesn't mean we haven't always been at war. We were in Vietnam in the mid 50s. We were in Nicaragua, Afghanistan in the 1980s, on and on. We have bases in the majority of the countries on earth.

There was no reason for Reagan to waste all that money in the 1980s. The commies were operating under a flawed economic model that was doomed to collapse. We built (wasted money on) enough nukes to destroy the world 100 times over. Isn't once enough?

Once the Soviet Union collapsed, military spending should've been cut by 80%. Clinton cut it to some extent, but not enough. Then our pal GWB went on a cowboy adventure and blew $4 trillion dollars pursuing Bin Laden.

Anyway, I agree with WJB in that entitlements are a larger problem than the military. But, wasteful military spending is just as bad. Of course, GWB actually made the entitlement problem worse by expanding medicare, and he blew his chance to reform social security.

It cracks me up that we squabble over Nasa or NPR funding, these are merely pennies our govt shells out... there are two, apparently untouchable, expenditures that need reducing and thats military and entitlement programs. There are 21 active aircraft carriers in the world, we lead everybody with 11 (9 more on the way too). You know who is in 2nd? Spain and Italy! they each only have 2. why on earth do we need 20 Aircraft carriers? On top of having bases all over the world? The over spending goes on and on and on. We all know we have the capability to mass produce these ships faster than any country on earth. We can still invest in the technology, remain the worlds most advanced military without building all of this.

I agree, but I think we should still have 7 or 8. To me it seems prudent to have 2-3 to dock over by Russia/China, 2-3 for the middle east, and 2-3 for Africa/to protect us here.

IMO an aircraft carrier is more of a peace vessel. It's this huge imposing, portable airbase that looms large and gives warning as to what's coming if things go bad. Nuclear subs, to me, are far more scary, but the enemy can't see them until its too late. When we send an aircraft carrier off of the coast if Libya it sends a message, if we sent a sub (which there's probably one over there somewhere anyhow) it would be for massive destruction.

That said, we're scheduled to decommission one in December of 2012. Instead of scrapping it or scuttling it I don't understand why we don't de-tech it and sell it to an ally. It's like being broke and giving your neighbor your trustworthy/paid off car to go buy a shiny new one... We could at least get some damn cash for the thing... And, the carrier that we're scheduled to get decommission was built in 1961.

Still, I agree with you in large part. We maintain to the tune of billions of dollars enough nuclear silos to literally destroy the world 10Xs over. Over the last decade or so, we have seemed to get more realistic and responsible about 1) our military spending, and 2) maintaining nuclear material.

But to answer your question... we need so damn many carriers because we've gotten so damn big. We literally have interests all over the world. It would be nice if there were a LEGITIMATE multi-national force that actually had some teeth (NATO is a damn joke) that was funded equally or even proportionally, but the fact of the matter is, there isn't.

September 17th, 2012, 3:04 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Coke V Pepsi

UK Lion wrote:

Thought this graph might be interesting.

The idea that republicans are less likely to increase the deficit than the democrats seems pretty far fetched when you look at it.

Post great depression/WW2, both parties presided over a long term reduction in the deficit. Then Reagan and Bush mk 1 presided over a massive increase, reversed under Clinton before GWB mk 2 presided over another massive increase.

Basically, both parties did much the same thing. The outliers are: 1. the Reagan/GWB mk 1 years, but they had the excuse of the cold war, 2. Clinton, but he was (IMO) fortunate with his timing in presiding over a period of peace and economic growth (rather than him really being the cause of either), 3. GWB mk 2, who was (IMO) a compelte and utter f*ck up.

The story, for me, is one of coke vs pepsi - with the exception of GWB mk 2 who is whatever soft drink you hate the most (so, for me, he's root beer - god I hate that stuff).

I think that graff is a little misleading... That's just a graph of the mount of debt held by the public/vs the GDP correct? So, any spending or losses in revenue that were done to stimulate something would be putting the tab under one party, and the benefits under another (i.e. Regan gets the tab, Clinton gets the benefit). At least that's how it seems to me.

I would rather see a list of govt spending broken down and how it's changed over time... I.E. a list of entitlement spending and how its ballooned and when and under whom, and a list of military spending and how its ballooned and when and under whom.

I wish there was a way to parce out "war spending" from defense spending. It would certainly help paint a better picture, but I don't see how Bush I sent troops into Iraq for the first time and the budget dropped by hundreds of billions of dollars?

September 17th, 2012, 3:48 pm

modninerfan

Pop Warner Rookie

Joined: October 12th, 2011, 6:52 pmPosts: 104Location: Modesto, CA

Re: Coke V Pepsi

wjb21ndtown wrote:

I wish there was a way to parce out "war spending" from defense spending. It would certainly help paint a better picture, but I don't see how Bush I sent troops into Iraq for the first time and the budget dropped by hundreds of billions of dollars?

Didnt we start shutting down a lot of military bases at that point? maybe that was clinton

_________________“Jim's a dynamic man with incredible determination, willpower and energy. He's the ultimate in a driven person who has high expectations. The people around him respond. He's on the cutting edge with an outstanding football mind.” - Bill Walsh

September 17th, 2012, 5:01 pm

TheRealWags

Modmin Dude

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12278

Re: Coke V Pepsi

modninerfan wrote:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

I wish there was a way to parce out "war spending" from defense spending. It would certainly help paint a better picture, but I don't see how Bush I sent troops into Iraq for the first time and the budget dropped by hundreds of billions of dollars?

Didnt we start shutting down a lot of military bases at that point? maybe that was clinton

It was during the Clinton Admin that the 'downsizing' was in full swing.

_________________

Quote:

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

September 17th, 2012, 5:12 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Coke V Pepsi

TheRealWags wrote:

modninerfan wrote:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

I wish there was a way to parce out "war spending" from defense spending. It would certainly help paint a better picture, but I don't see how Bush I sent troops into Iraq for the first time and the budget dropped by hundreds of billions of dollars?

Didnt we start shutting down a lot of military bases at that point? maybe that was clinton

It was during the Clinton Admin that the 'downsizing' was in full swing.

I do think we started downsizing from Germany, France, and Cuba before Clinton, but I could be wrong. Again, it's just weird that we had a full-scale, all-out war and invasion with more troops on the ground then than now, and military spending went down? I don't get it?

September 17th, 2012, 5:38 pm

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 9589Location: Dallas

Re: Coke V Pepsi

Not too much difference between Coke and Pepsi last night in debate #3. Seemed to be a lot of agreement on how to approach Iran's nuclear program, China, Syria's cival war, and how to handle extremism in the Arab part of the world.

So the only difference I can see, that is PLAINLY visible is one loves the country, and one doesn't.

One candidate is passionate, strong, determined, and willing to donate his salary if elected. One understands what makes America outstanding, and even if that means returning to the strategy of the 1980's, or growing the economy of the roaring 20's, or re-instating SOME of the morality of the 50's, whats the problem?

One candidate has surrounded himself with communists, sympathizers, enemies of the state, gone on an apology tour to borrow the phrase, told a KNOWN communist leader that we will be more flexible after the election, and placed Muslim Brotherhood members in KEY government office positions.

This doesn't sound like Coke vs Pepsi, this sounds like Pepsi vs Cyanide!

_________________2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."